Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil CEO, said issues like climate change, energy dependence and oil/gas drilling are blown out of proportion. He blames a lazy press, illiterate public and fear-mongering advocacy groups for the bad light placed on the oil industry.

Climate change is a controversial topic that has been subjected to much debate. Tillerson said that fossil fuels may cause global warming, but argued that humans can easily adapt to the warmer climate. More specifically, he said that humans can adapt to rising sea levels and climate changes because he doubts the validity of climate modeling, which predicts the magnitude of impact associated with climate change.

"We have spent our entire existence adapting," said Tillerson. "We'll adapt. It's an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution."

Others, however, disagree with Tillerson's assessment. Andrew Weaver, chairman of climate modeling and analysis at Canada's University of Victoria, said that adapting to climate change would be much harder than just preventing it in the first place.

In addition, adapting to climate change could be much more expensive than preventing it. According to Steve Coll, author of "Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power," adapting to climate change would require moving entire cities. A better alternative would be legislation that slows the process of global warming.

An example of such a measure is the proposed fuel standards for 2017-2025, which will require automakers to create vehicles capable of 54.5 MPG by 2025. The effort aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen the country's dependency on foreign oil. These standards will cost the auto industry $157.3 billion and add an extra $2,000 to the sticker price of new autos, but it will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the gas pump.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will finalize the fuel efficiency standards by the end of July 2012. Such measures could hit ExxonMobil's wallet with less gas used.

Tillerson also addressed the topic of consequences related to oil/gas drilling techniques, saying that drilling will always present possible risks like spills and accidents. But he mentioned that such risks are manageable and worth the end result, which is the energy provided.

Tillerson also said that drilling in shale formations doesn't pose life-threatening risks to those living nearby. However, drilling mixes millions of gallons of water with sand and chemicals that creates drilling wastewater. If this water is not treated, it can contaminate drinking water through cracked drilling pipes.

Tillerson also mentioned his problem with views on oil dependency. He said that there will always be access to oil, and that it doesn't matter where the U.S. gets oil because it is priced globally. Tillerson added that the U.S. only receiving oil from North America would still increase gas prices in the U.S. because it would cause a "disruption" in the Middle East.

quote: So is water vapor. In fact, water vapor is a BETTER greenhouse gas. How does water vapor behave?

And so is Methane and Nitrous oxide and Ozone, none of those stop the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I'm glad you mentioned water vapor, it's one of the most dangerous greenhouse gases, as anyone who has ever boiled anything, you should have noticed that the hotter water gets, the more water vapor is produced, without having to use much brainpower anyone should be able to see that this leads to a runaway heating effect. (maybe that's not the answer you were looking for though!)

quote: The increase FOLLOWING rises in temperature, not preceding it. Thus, the cause-effect relationship is reversed.

Ah, one of the much bandied cries of the head-in-the-sand crowd. To say that cause-effect is reversed is a gross misunderstanding of the facts.

Just because SOME rise in temperature occurred BEFORE a CO2 increase does not mean that further temperature increases were not caused by CO2.

You've probably seen historical graphs where CO2 increase follows behind temperature increase and you have come to the conclusion that temperature increase causes a CO2 increase.....Yea.Well, that actually true.So well done there.As the oceans heat up they give off CO2 and stop absorbing as much CO2 as they did.

But here's the problem, because the CO2 level is now slightly higher, more heat is retained, thus the oceans give off more CO2.

CO2 does not have to be the one starting this runaway effect, that can be other greenhouse gases, solar or orbital effects etc.. The crux of the heat-CO2 problem is that it is self-reinforcing.

It's not a "single cause" leads to a "single effect" phenomenon.

quote: The biggest concern of which is acid rain. There's a whole host of other pollution concerns that take precedence over this "global climate change" malarky.

Yes, there are other pollution concerns, I never said there wasn't. As for your assertion that climate change is "malarky" you have not shown this to be the case.

Give it up. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, yes, but that's where the fun ends. We now know for a fact it is NOT an atmospheric temperature "driver". The "hockey stick" was a lie. And temperatures do not rise exponentially with the rise in CO2.

The "runaway greenhouse" effect cause by man is a myth. There's simply no such thing. It's not happening, and it never will happen.

quote: Just because SOME rise in temperature occurred BEFORE a CO2 increase does not mean that further temperature increases were not caused by CO2.

Oh brilliant logic there. Because science works so much better when we throw out observation, fact, and control groups.

You accuse me of throwing out science logic and fact, but you can't put 2 and 2 together.

1. increased CO2 causes warming2. warming causes increased CO2

Just because CO2 didn't start the problem does not mean that it does not occur.

If you bother to take the time to look up that link you'll see that, historically, earth comes out of an ice age because of an orbital shift. But these orbital are once-off effects essentially, increased warming comes from the increase in CO2. So much so, that 90% of the warming occurrs after the increase in CO2.

I get it, you think that because somebody showed you a slide with the level of CO2 increasing after the increase in temperature, you think that the link goes in one direction only, that's very simplistic of you. It's not doing science, logic or fact any favors to look at the issue with such a one-dimensional mind.

Maybe with your simplified logic and watered down science, everything has a single cause and that single cause has a single effect, but the atmosphere of this planet is much more complicated than that.

I'll quote the above link:

quote: Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.

Right which is why we have proof that when there was 20 times more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, there was NO runaway "greenhouse effect". Because C02 always causes warming? False.

There's more than enough evidence coming out, finally, that man made global warming is nothing but a hoax, perpetrated by people who sought out to pervert the peer review and scientific process. And you're here armchair quarterbacking, repeating this, as if you have any expertise on the subject. Ironically enough, criticizing those of us who do the exact same thing, based on information that doesn't agree with your world view.

I'm not a scientist or a climatologist, and neither are you. But I'll tell you this, as long as this remains a legitimate scientific debate, you have no right to proclaim the theories you back as correct and condescend those who don't agree with it.

quote: Maybe with your simplified logic and watered down science, everything has a single cause and that single cause has a single effect, but the atmosphere of this planet is much more complicated than that.

LOL you're right, it IS complicated, which makes it all the more puzzling that you offered this as some kind of "end game" argument:

quote: 1. increased CO2 causes warming2. warming causes increased CO2

WOW!!! What a very in depth and multifaceted evaluation of the hundreds of systems and elements involved in detailing atmospheric conditions!! Talk about simplified and watered down science.

"Rad Dude", you aren't rad. You aren't even that interesting. You're a waste of time, and most likely, a hypocrite. You generate just as much C02 as the next guy here.

quote: Right which is why we have proof that when there was 20 times more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, there was NO runaway "greenhouse effect". Because C02 always causes warming? False.

Jebus, you're going back 400 million years now, do you know just how different the planet was back then?Anyway you can't say that there was 20 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, that's plain stupid. The percentage was 20 times higher, but there's no way the total amount of gas in the atmosphere was exactly the same as today, in other words the atmospheric pressure was probably (according to all the studies I've seen on this) a lot lower. And atmospheric pressure also has a large effect on the greenhouse effect. The fact that you don't know the different between a percentage and a total amount is very worrying, it shows that your grasp on the area is very poor indeed.

Or maybe you just heard this "20 times higher" factoid without looking any deeper, probably because it just fit your pre-existing world view so well.

quote: There's more than enough evidence coming out, finally, that man made global warming is nothing but a hoax, perpetrated by people who sought out to pervert the peer review and scientific process.

My ass. Just because a few of the scientists on the climate change side are dishonest does not mean they all are. And it's not like the anti-climate-change scientists are any more honest.

quote: I'm not a scientist or a climatologist, and neither are you.

I think I've shown that I know more about this than you though ... "percentage = amount" hehe

quote: What a very in depth and multifaceted evaluation of the hundreds of systems and elements involved in detailing atmospheric conditions!! Talk about simplified and watered down science.

I'm trying to simplify it down to your level, I just hope you look into in in more detail.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there is no debate on that. The properties of the gas have been known for 200 or so years. The only debate can be on how much warming the CO2 causes, and it's not zero.

quote: You're a waste of time, and most likely, a hypocrite. You generate just as much C02 as the next guy here.

At least I'm not so stupid as to fall for that "CO2 percentage = amount" argument that the less intelligent climate change deniers fall for :-))

quote: Jebus, you're going back 400 million years now, do you know just how different the planet was back then?

This is not a valid argument. The planet sure was "different", however how C02 interacts with the atmosphere to "cause warming" sure wasn't different. If you're claiming our atmosphere worked in a completely different way than it does today, I think you're going to have to explain this difference.

Oh and the pressure was "probably" lower? That's funny because I've read papers that suggested it was "probably" higher. But, of course, your side is right on that too. Because..uhh, you said so.

Not that you can, because it didn't. And not that you wanted to even attempt to do so, because the fact is the truth isn't very convenient for you now, is it.

quote: I think I've shown that I know more about this than you though

No. You've shown that you can repeat what you've heard on the news, or read on Liberal blogs. But true knowledge? You're not showing it at all because you aren't able to form your own opinions. You aren't applying critical thinking, you're arbitrarily deciding something and backing it up with bias. Regurgitation isn't knowledge.

quote: Just because a few of the scientists on the climate change side are dishonest does not mean they all are. And it's not like the anti-climate-change scientists are any more honest.

Case in point. It doesn't matter if a "few" scientists were dishonest. The point is the data they fabricated, the numbers they massaged, was the very blueprint for the Man Made Global Warming theory that nearly EVERY climatologist based his opinion on. If you bothered to use deductive reasoning you would realize the significance of this.

You're a bore. You sweep aside any evidence or proof contrary to your beliefs with a wave of your hand, as if it no longer exists. And you drone on about science?

quote: At least I'm not so stupid as to fall for that "CO2 percentage = amount" argument that the less intelligent climate change deniers fall for :-))

quote: This is not a valid argument. The planet sure was "different", however how C02 interacts with the atmosphere to "cause warming" sure wasn't different.

Huh, was the planet considerably different or not, was the orbit different, was the sun different, was the solar wind different. So "the atmosphere is complicated" argument only works for you and no one else.

quote: Oh and the pressure was "probably" lower? That's funny because I've read papers that suggested it was "probably" higher. But, of course, your side is right on that too. Because..uhh, you said so.

So you think the pressure was different. And you still think that because the LEVEL of CO2 was 20 times higher, that the AMOUNT of CO2 was ALSO 20 times higher. WOW I thought you were stupid, but that's completely retarded. You do know that AMOUNT and PERCENTAGE are completely different things now yea?

quote: Case in point. It doesn't matter if a "few" scientists were dishonest. The point is the data they fabricated, the numbers they massaged, was the very blueprint for the Man Made Global Warming theory that nearly EVERY climatologist based his opinion on.

That's not true and you know it.

quote: But true knowledge? You're not showing it at all because you aren't able to form your own opinions. You aren't applying critical thinking, you're arbitrarily deciding something and backing it up with bias. Regurgitation isn't knowledge.

But you are just repeating incorrect knowledge. The majority of Climate Scientists agree that global warming and climate change is real. Only a few disagree, and most of those that disagree are not climate scientists.

quote: You do know that AMOUNT and PERCENTAGE are completely different things now yea?

Why do you keep harping on this? Yes I know that. There was almost 2000 parts per million of C02 in the atmosphere, and NO runaway greenhouse effect. The amount AND percentage was higher, get over it.

quote: That's not true and you know it.

It IS true. The IPCC data was the foundation on which nearly all AGW studies were built on! How can the study be valid if the models, data, math and conclusions were all false?

quote: The majority of Climate Scientists agree that global warming and climate change is real. Only a few disagree, and most of those that disagree are not climate scientists.

I'm actually impressed you've gone this long without resorting to the false, and often used, "majority" argument. But ultimately when reason fails, your side will simply repeat this as if it ends the discussion. First off there is no majority, that's a crock. Secondly science isn't a democratic process, or a popularity contest. Was the Earth the center of the Universe because a then "majority" of scientists agreed it was?

quote: Umm. the earth is warming, the highest temperatures on record were in the last decade. Sorry there's not the perfectly linear increase that you would apparently require.

Excuse me? We're coming out of a 15 year period where when the temps were supposed to be rising due to increased C02 (yes amount and percentage, asshole), we saw no global temperature rise. It's not us that claimed we would see linear increases, again, YOUR SIDE insisted that would be the trend!

quote: Excuse me? We're coming out of a 15 year period where when the temps were supposed to be rising due to increased C02 (yes amount and percentage, asshole), we saw no global temperature rise. It's not us that claimed we would see linear increases, again, YOUR SIDE insisted that would be the trend!

Actually, from 98-08 we haven't seen the temperature going up at its previous rate. This is very likely due to increased aerosols in the atmosphere. During that same time period, China made a massive increase in dirty coal plants that put sulfates in atmosphere. They obscure the CO2 heating trend because the aerosols reflect sunlight.

quote: Was the Earth the center of the Universe because a then "majority" of scientists agreed it was?

The universe has no center, anyone who has studied the big bang knows that. Religions have said that the earth is the center of the universe (and also the solar system) in an attempt to give people the warm and fuzzy feeling that god started everything and is in control of the planet. Scientists always followed the data on the "center of the solar system" issue though. Although there are of course people and even some scientists who cannot accept that the earth can change and move over time, you know, people a bit like you who think nothing will change and we can't affect the planet.

quote: again, YOUR SIDE insisted that would be the trend!

And YOUR SIDE believes the earth was created 6000 years ago, so burn fossil fuels burn... There you go, if you lump me with what you perceive to be one side I'll do the same.

Only it's not that simple is it? It's not just black and white, there's more than just 2 sides, just like there's more than just one cause leading to one effect.

quote:

quote: You do know that AMOUNT and PERCENTAGE are completely different things now yea?

Why do you keep harping on this? Yes I know that.

Why did you use AMOUNT in your post then??? Nobody knows the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere half a billion years ago because nobody knows the amount of atmosphere back then. If you knew it, what was you intent, to fool the weak minded into thinking that the world is exactly as it was half a billion years ago.

And if you are so sure that there was more atmosphere back then, then show us your data, there's far more studies to say that there was less atmosphere in the past, or do you have your blinkers on when looking at those studies as well? I've learned that you're great at picking and choosing science in order to justify your pre-existing beliefs.

Here's a hint, toss out your beliefs and look at the science with an open mind.

quote: First off there is no majority, that's a crock

It's not just a majority, it's an overwhelming majority, you really are a very special person if you think otherwise.

That's actually true, I like the way you sneaked that small truth in there to make it look like you know what you're talking about (did you get that snippet from a tv program?) But it's also no justification whatsoever for you to hold a such a narrow view on the field. You don't get to decide what's true, the scientists, the real climate scientists do. And they think that more CO2 is bad, just how bad varies, but it's not a good thing.

As for the rest of the crap you spout I'll let other people take care of it.

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken